accelo_count_assets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether counting requires any permissions, how filters are combined, whether counting is exact or approximate, or any performance/rate-limit behavior for a potentially expensive aggregation call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with no waste. Front-loaded verb+resource. Brevity is appropriate, though it comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-param tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot know the filter shape, the units of the returned count, or when this tool is preferable to accelo_list_assets.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and neither parameter has a title-level description. The description mentions 'filters' generically but adds nothing about the shape of the filters object or the search field, which is a free-text string. With two undocumented parameters, the description should have compensated and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (count) and resource (assets) with scope (matching filters). Clear but provides no differentiation from siblings like accelo_list_assets or accelo_get_asset, which is the same gap shared by the ~50 other count_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance. The description does not say to use this instead of accelo_list_assets when only a total is needed, nor does it explain any prerequisites. An agent must infer the purpose entirely from the verb.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.